In current state of economy and considering that everyone already has pretty decent HDTVs and new LCD TVs cheap and beautiful, I would say 4-5k for 55" is on the top limit of "acceptable" for US market. Anything beyond that doesn't make any difference. If the person/company willing to spend $8k on this TV - no reason to believe they can't find 12 or 14. Sharp got unexpected business boost by "diving" beyond "red flag" prices, Pioneer did the opposit. And soon after -it's gone.As gorgeous Fujitsu Plasmas long before... All specs for LGs OLED TV pointing -it's Premium Mass Market product for PREMIUM price, not some kind of insain "Qualia" dead-end niche TV. OK! Last try - $5995... -Soon we will know!
PS: Chilax...

I'm going to guess you don't know too many rich people.

There are certainly people for whom the difference between $10,000 and $25,000 does not exist. But in almost every product category, demand is stratified by price. There is a reason not every Audi owner has the top trim level and not every Porsche owner has every single option on the car. These things cost money.

One thing I'm not sure you are fully grasping despite your correct assessment that $4K or so is the top end of acceptable is that the market size above that is infinitesimal. I'd guess at $5K, the entire possible U.S. sales for a 55" TV is well below 50K annually. But just to be clear, if the price is $10K, that market is not even half as large -- whatever the size.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

There are certainly people for whom the difference between $10,000 and $25,000 does not exist. But in almost every product category, demand is stratified by price. There is a reason not every Audi owner has the top trim level and not every Porsche owner has every single option on the car. These things cost money.

One thing I'm not sure you are fully grasping despite your correct assessment that $4K or so is the top end of acceptable is that the market size above that is infinitesimal. I'd guess at $5K, the entire possible U.S. sales for a 55" TV is well below 50K annually. But just to be clear, if the price is $10K, that market is not even half as large -- whatever the size.

Add to this that the segment of not-so-price-sensitive potential buyers of the 55" OLED is also limited from the top: the 55" size looks too small for many in this segment when there is a choice of 65", 70", 80" and soon most likely a 90". Many are willing to sacrifice a (small) bit on PQ for (much) bigger size @betterprice. See those choosing between the locdim 60/65" and non-locdim 70" or between the locdim 70" and non-locdim 80". Thus, this size-related train has left for the 55" OLED.

In current state of economy and considering that everyone already has pretty decent HDTVs and new LCD TVs cheap and beautiful, I would say 4-5k for 55" is on the top limit of "acceptable" for US market.

I would be beyond shocked if the sets are closer to $5,000 than $8,000. If Samsung doesn't have a set to compete with LG, then LG has the only OLED on the market, and the only technology that a competitor doesn't have. They are also very likely to be yield limited, so even if they could sell 500,000 units at $5,000 each but only 50,000 at $8,000 each, they might only have 50,000 to sell and will price it accordingly.

It will be priced out of my reach, but that's fine with me as it's going to eventually come down. If it doesn't sell at the price it comes out at, then I'm sure they will reduce the price. l really don't think they need to worry about having it priced too high for being labeled LG on the front either. If it's the only OLED set, and has a higher price margin built in than other sets then every dealer is going to be very, very happy to show it off to everyone if the performance is good, since it's the only model and they (along with LG) can make more money from selling it. If a car company had the only version of technology that gave your car an extra 20 MPG, I'd expect them to price it high while they can, as they'd have no competition for a little bit, and then the price to go down once other people caught up. I just think expecting the price to be around $5,000 is setting yourself up for disappointment, as I don't think LG would have any reason to price it that low.

I would be beyond shocked if the sets are closer to $5,000 than $8,000. If Samsung doesn't have a set to compete with LG, then LG has the only OLED on the market, and the only technology that a competitor doesn't have. They are also very likely to be yield limited, so even if they could sell 500,000 units at $5,000 each but only 50,000 at $8,000 each, they might only have 50,000 to sell and will price it accordingly...

...I just think expecting the price to be around $5,000 is setting yourself up for disappointment, as I don't think LG would have any reason to price it that low.

I agree. I posted earlier that I think it will be priced initially around the price of the 70 inch Elite. Then it will likely come down...and bigger panels will emerge.

Add to this that the segment of not-so-price-sensitive potential buyers of the 55" OLED is also limited from the top: the 55" size looks too small for many in this segment when there is a choice of 65", 70", 80" and soon most likely a 90". Many are willing to sacrifice a (small) bit on PQ for (much) bigger size @betterprice. See those choosing between the locdim 60/65" and non-locdim 70" or between the locdim 70" and non-locdim 80". Thus, this size-related train has left for the 55" OLED.

I agree with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

No they won't. Most people will just stop at 50-60" TV because above that is just too big isn't it?

55" is just nice for those who believe huge size is not going to be significant. You can't argue different things in different thread in same breath.

Actually he can. The price sensitive people who want size will adopt for bigger and cheaper. The size sensitive people who want size will find 55" simply too small. You are not impressing anyone with your 55" TV at 12-16' from the couch. The video-quality sensitive people who are also price insensitive and don't want/need more than 55" -- which is really a small group -- will opt for the OLED.

This is fine because, as Smackrabbit notes, they will be production constrained for the near future. When they can change the constraint, they can deal with the pricing issue. They won't be able to do much about size for a while. 8G is still not going to make for efficiently building very large TVs. Since you keep insisting the median TV buyer is going to be a buying a 60" (or did I characterize that wrong?), that would seem to be a major tactical error.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

Fact is that in 2000 Toyota did introduce a car that got 20mpg more than anyone else's when they introduced the first generation Prius--a Corolla sized car that easily doubled the Corolla's real world in town fuel economy. They did not soak customers double the price of a Corolla, however. At the time the Prius cost approximately 25% more than a comparably equipped Corolla--20k vs about 16-17k. They reportedly took a 15k loss on each car to keep that price point but at the time were about the most profitable car company on earth so could easily afford it. Their rationale was to get enough of the cars on the road to prove the viability of the tech, which they did--some of those first Prius cars are still on the road with 180k miles on them. Shortly after the 2nd generation models were introduced for the '03 model year they did start actually making money on them. Other mfgs. followed suit with their own hybrids, similarly not soaking customers and the hybrid car has become a viable niche product.

If Toyota had chosen to soak the customer as Smackrabbit expects LG to do with the OLED tv, they would have priced the Prius at 37k and nobody would own one except Ed Begley Jr, none of the other mfgs. would have built them, and the hybrid car would be a footnote in automotive history.

The extra white subpixel does indeed complicate these matters considerably. I hope (and assume) they get this right.

I assume the white subpixel adds 100% additional brightness for a white screen, because all RGB light passes. The main benefit is probably that it increases the lifetime at a given brightness.

A big factor will be reducing power draw. Some jurisdictions limit TV power consumption. It would suck if you couldn't sell your new wonder TV in California.

Pure white in an RGB panel require 3 pixels fully lit. With RGBW it takes 1. Potentially 1/3 the power draw. There will be some minor use of the other colors to tweak white balance, but you should get significant power savings from the white pixel.

I really like this (WOLED + RGBW) design. It appears to be a very practical design.

...
If Toyota had chosen to soak the customer as Smackrabbit expects LG to do with the OLED tv, they would have priced the Prius at 37k and nobody would own one except Ed Begley Jr, none of the other mfgs. would have built them, and the hybrid car would be a footnote in automotive history.

Great example! -That's how you do business if you wanna rule the World!

Actually he can. The price sensitive people who want size will adopt for bigger and cheaper. The size sensitive people who want size will find 55" simply too small. You are not impressing anyone with your 55" TV at 12-16' from the couch. The video-quality sensitive people who are also price insensitive and don't want/need more than 55" -- which is really a small group -- will opt for the OLED.

This is fine because, as Smackrabbit notes, they will be production constrained for the near future. When they can change the constraint, they can deal with the pricing issue. They won't be able to do much about size for a while. 8G is still not going to make for efficiently building very large TVs. Since you keep insisting the median TV buyer is going to be a buying a 60" (or did I characterize that wrong?), that would seem to be a major tactical error.

In other words there is enough mass in each market segmentation to support new or huge size technologies. That's what I've always been saying. That's not what I figured you guys are saying ie these are not viable technologies because the market is not big enough.

I mean... 55" is above any mean that I can see globally isn't it, if that's always the argument against huge size? HYPOTHETICALLY if they make 70" OLED I could see people say again: That's too big (not to mention grossly expensive)... no one's gonna buy it. Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

Why do you think Sammy jump from 5.5G to 8G? Why not do incremental 6G or 7.5G since there is no demand for "huge size"? Sharp has shown that it is possible to make 80" from 8G mixed with the rest <10".

In any case I suspect LG Display rights issue will be coming very soon after CES based on all these exhilarating newsflows

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve S

If Toyota had chosen to soak the customer as Smackrabbit expects LG to do with the OLED tv, they would have priced the Prius at 37k and nobody would own one except Ed Begley Jr, none of the other mfgs. would have built them, and the hybrid car would be a footnote in automotive history.

Actually the STRATEGY changes with capacity. If Toyota could only produce 10k Prius then it might possibly be priced at $37k. Pricing has a funny way of messing with people's minds if positioned properly

As usual there is no hard and fast rules for strategies. You have to adopt to the environment and constraints.

That's what I've always been saying. That's not what I figured you guys are saying ie these are not viable technologies because the market is not big enough.

There's a big difference between "not viable" (not what I've ever said) and "challenging"/"not taking over the world overnight" which is what the hype and hypesters would have you believe.

It would take 10+ 8G fabs to satisfy 50% of the current LCD market. Surely we're not assuming China is going to just sit that and watch Korea and Japan turn the market over to OLED without making them miserable with ever cheaper LCDs in the meantime. And surely those amortized Japanese and Korean fabs are not going to be shut down just to support some scheme to invest $40-50B collectively to go OLED, just cause it's sexy.

Viable? Yes. World conquering? Definitely maybe.

When I read about how shatterproof and/or lightweight OLED is the death knell for LCD, I just roll my eyes. A lot.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

There's a big difference between "not viable" (not what I've ever said) and "challenging"/"not taking over the world overnight" which is what the hype and hypesters would have you believe.

It would take 10+ 8G fabs to satisfy 50% of the current LCD market. Surely we're not assuming China is going to just sit that and watch Korea and Japan turn the market over to OLED without making them miserable with ever cheaper LCDs in the meantime. And surely those amortized Japanese and Korean fabs are not going to be shut down just to support some scheme to invest $40-50B collectively to go OLED, just cause it's sexy.

Viable? Yes. World conquering? Definitely maybe.

When I read about how shatterproof and/or lightweight OLED is the death knell for LCD, I just roll my eyes. A lot.

Frankly that's not my impression as you keep focusing on "only LCD and Plasma made it" and minuscule market share.

I've always said the 3 tech can exist together in the medium term. If anything plasma will be the first to go in 10 years' time. Frankly we don't need to create a strawman or swing to extremes in our discussions. We leave that to those who writes reports for a fee/ living so as to garner attention and hype.

Frankly that's not my impression as you keep focusing on "only LCD and Plasma made it" and minuscule market share.

I submit that you misread what I'm writing. The certainly of massive OLED success is far from guaranteed. The certainty of mass-market type penetration is far from guaranteed. If neither of these is achieved, the manufacturers who invest small fortunes in fabs will not make good return on said investments. That's a lot different from "OLED can't exist".

That said, yes, I do believe it cannot exist as a premium-priced product capturing 1-3% of the market. I believe there is no way to sustain a production line producing infinitesimal quantities of OLED TVs that will retail for astronomical sums of money. If that is someone's OLED business plan, it will most certainly fail.

There is no "premium TV" market per se. There is a tiny sliver of the TV market that will buy at premium prices. Those premium prices fall every year. The emergence of OLED TV is not going to re-create a $5000 TV market that has long ago ceased to exist. If that is someone's OLED business plan, it will most certainly fail.

I don't believe anyone is this stupid, not even LG.

Quote:

I've always said the 3 tech can exist together in the medium term. If anything plasma will be the first to go in 10 years' time. Frankly we don't need to create a strawman or swing to extremes in our discussions. We leave that to those who writes reports for a fee/ living so as to garner attention and hype.

Plenty of people here swing to extremes and create these ridiculous statements about "the end of LCD" "taking the throne" "wall size OLEDs" "roll up displays" etc. as if these are happening in the next 3-5 years. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

"OLED TV is set to debut around late 2012 as a contender in the 40”+ category, but will only grow to about 2.5% of the 40”+ segment by 2015 due to high prices and limited availability. Current projections are for OLED to debut at about 2-3X the price of a high-end LED-backlit LCD TV." -2.5% in world's market translates to pretty decent number for US!

I had already posted that chart a couple of weeks ago. I"m not sure what your point is other than to agree with you that OLED growth over time will comprise a portion of the larger-size TV market.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

Ferro, that would be a welcome change from the earlier announcement. Let's hope The Verge is correct and that's what we're seeing.

And you may ask yourself well how did I get here?
And you may ask yourself am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself: What have I done?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once you let the trolls run the bridge, you have a bridge run by trolls. I'll be back.

I would not get all stressed out about the photo of the display. The complexions of the people in the shot also look over saturated and the picture looks poorly lighted. Then of course we are seeing it on the web, and it can only look as good as what our monitors are capable of displaying.